Michael Davey Film Annotation 4: Coal Country Words: 1465, Date: 11/15/2010 Title: Coal Country (2009), Director: Phylis Geller
2. The central argument of Coal Country depicts an industry in social, moral and environmental crisis. Coal as it is used today is unsustainable and we see that point made best by the practice of mountaintop removal. Mountaintop removal was invented by the coal miners to allow the mining of coal close to the surface without building expensive and complex subterranean operations. By blasting and sifting through the mountaintops in Appalachia and other parts of coal country in the US, coal mining companies have found a cheap way to reach this source of material. This method and the resource being mined are unsustainable and the industry has no consideration for the future of the earth or the communities surrounding their mining sites.
3. The film draws out the both the physical and social sustainability problems generated by the coal mining operations. Physical problems include the pollution of water sources, loss of biodiversity where mountaintops have been blasted and in some cases reclaimed, filling of streams, dust and air quality, coal processing and the ineffectiveness of carbon sequestering. Social issues are the ties and mutual interests held by the political system and coal executives, ineffectiveness of unions and the deception of the coal workers by the coal companies and lobbyists. While the environmental spokesmen for the coal companies say the process of reclamation replaces exactly what was on a mountain and in its ecosystem, this is impossible when what had evolved over thousands of years is destroyed and replanted in a matter of years. Biodiversity and water are wrecked in one blow when after mountaintop removal, the company decided to dump the excess dirt and dust into a valley, thus filling a stream. This is in violation of the clean water act of 1972, but when suits are filed and cases won the coal industry appeals and the rulings are overturned. Slurry impoundments (111 exist in West Virginia alone) constantly threaten fresh water sources and the dust generated by the blasting operations contaminates the air and water of the surrounding towns. These unattractive issues drive down property values and result in a hopeless and impoverished population, slowly dying off from various forms of cancer caused by the coal industry’s contamination of their resources. Carbon sequestering has been heralded by the coal industry as a way of producing clean coal, however they will essentially be taking the pollution and stuffing it underground. This method has not been tested and no side effects have been explored by the industries that expect to implement it. On the social side, one of the main problems drawn out by the film was the injustice toward the locals surrounding the mines. In some ways, they do injustice to themselves by holding such pride in their jobs. They are proud miners who make a good salary doing what they do. However, their employers make themselves out to be saints holding the keys to keeping the lights on in American homes, while in reality they are doing nothing to make sure that we have a renewable method of keeping those very lights on. These companies tend to play the “jobs card” whenever confronted about labor injustice, however the average worker fails to recognize that there are few jobs per operation and mountaintop mining tends to be more of a capital intensive business, rather than a labor intensive one. The jobs card becomes even more ludicrous when unions are accounted for. Massey Coal dominates the region the film takes place in and in the 1970’s and 80’s rendered the unions powerless by hiring non union workers who lived out of town. This pitched miner against miner and drew the focus away from Massey. In effect, this impoverishes the locals by taking local salaries and exporting them to other communities. Locals see only two employment opportunities. They are coal and fast food because those are the two types of businesses which are located near them. Coal is the favorable option in this case for the worker. The government officials pose another sustainability factor. Representatives Byrd and Rockefeller of West Virginia both endorse the coal industry and in the case of Rockefeller, only as a means into office. Rockefeller first ran for office in the 1970’s on a platform condemning strip mining and lost. He came back the next year with the opposite platform and won. This clearly shows both how skewed the public view of the coal industry is, and how shady the politics are around the energy industry.
4. I found the imagery most compelling in the film. The image the McDonalds golden arches and a coal processing plant present as the only two options for employment strike me as a designed effort by the wealthy to keep the poor coming to work. The most compelling images came from the sheer dirtiness of the towns. When one woman cleaned her water filter there was a thick sludge in the filter. Such contamination and build up proves the abnormal amount of solids in the water in those regions and the ineffectiveness of the coal industry to control itself. Another compelling image was the dome protruding over the ridge where an impoundment had been covered. The community had rallied to get this backyard menace cleaned up to find the coal companies only willing enough to cover their mess, rather than actually fix it. The dome was the lowest cost option for controlling the negative impact of that impoundment. Additionally, the effort by the coal companies and legislators to undermine non-compliance suits was incredible.
5. I was not convinced by the happy ending. The sentiment at the end of the film is one of hope supplied by wind power. However, this movement was just starting. If a plan was presented in the film discussing how the group would approach the government, the community and the coal giants themselves. The learning of the law by the communities inspires hope, especially as these movements take off, however implementing wind power is a huge challenge right now as it is not constant and certainly not cost competitive at this time.
6. This film best addresses an audience with an activist spirit and little knowledge of what the coal industry is like. I personally was educated very well during this film as to the intricacies and impacts of the coal industry on local communities and on legislation. Corruption, bias and misinformation are shown to be momentously detrimental to the Appalachian people and stand in the way of any effort to fix the broken system. The largest factor in overcoming such challenges may be the loyal work force itself. These people have the coal business ingrained in their bones and family traditions. That kind of loyalty will prove to be the toughest to overcome.
7. This film would have been enhanced by more outside perspective on the coal industry and the effects on the people in Appalachia. Most of the interviewed were citizens directly affected by mountaintop removal. Some of these people had education and were very well informed, but some more points of view which are not affected by the coal industry would have given some insight and balance to the film’s analysis.
8. Engaging in wind power movements was suggested by the film as an action item. This solution is valid, but must become cost competitive to be adopted by energy companies. Also, training programs would need to be established in order to maintain the wind turbines locally, rather than hiring out of town technicians to maintain the systems.
9. In addition to the film, I sought out information on Massey Energy’s commitment to the environment, specifically, water quality. (http://www.masseyenergyco.com/environment/water_quality.shtml) The page describes Massey’s pledge to exceed the provisions of the Clean Water Act. The most striking point provided by the sight is the description of the slurry monitoring systems. These systems pump 5 billion gallons of slurry annually and monitor the pipes for leaks, pressure and any damage which trigger an automatic shut down of the pump if set off. The question I come away with is, where are they putting the slurry? The description says the pipes can exceed one half mile in length. A spry college student can run that in less than five minutes. Massey apparently sees fit to develop technology that works, but cannot be used effectively.
This press release (http://www.nrdc.org/media/2010/100517.asp) from May 2010 states that a survey of reclaimed land shows poor utilization of reclaimed land. Through surveying 410 reclaimed sites, the study produced the data that 89.3 percent of the reclaimed land had no economic activity taking place on it. If the purpose of reclamation is to render the land usable, the coal industry is failing.
Film Annotation 4: Coal Country
Words: 1465, Date: 11/15/2010
Title: Coal Country (2009), Director: Phylis Geller
2. The central argument of Coal Country depicts an industry in social, moral and environmental crisis. Coal as it is used today is unsustainable and we see that point made best by the practice of mountaintop removal. Mountaintop removal was invented by the coal miners to allow the mining of coal close to the surface without building expensive and complex subterranean operations. By blasting and sifting through the mountaintops in Appalachia and other parts of coal country in the US, coal mining companies have found a cheap way to reach this source of material. This method and the resource being mined are unsustainable and the industry has no consideration for the future of the earth or the communities surrounding their mining sites.
3. The film draws out the both the physical and social sustainability problems generated by the coal mining operations. Physical problems include the pollution of water sources, loss of biodiversity where mountaintops have been blasted and in some cases reclaimed, filling of streams, dust and air quality, coal processing and the ineffectiveness of carbon sequestering. Social issues are the ties and mutual interests held by the political system and coal executives, ineffectiveness of unions and the deception of the coal workers by the coal companies and lobbyists. While the environmental spokesmen for the coal companies say the process of reclamation replaces exactly what was on a mountain and in its ecosystem, this is impossible when what had evolved over thousands of years is destroyed and replanted in a matter of years. Biodiversity and water are wrecked in one blow when after mountaintop removal, the company decided to dump the excess dirt and dust into a valley, thus filling a stream. This is in violation of the clean water act of 1972, but when suits are filed and cases won the coal industry appeals and the rulings are overturned. Slurry impoundments (111 exist in West Virginia alone) constantly threaten fresh water sources and the dust generated by the blasting operations contaminates the air and water of the surrounding towns. These unattractive issues drive down property values and result in a hopeless and impoverished population, slowly dying off from various forms of cancer caused by the coal industry’s contamination of their resources. Carbon sequestering has been heralded by the coal industry as a way of producing clean coal, however they will essentially be taking the pollution and stuffing it underground. This method has not been tested and no side effects have been explored by the industries that expect to implement it. On the social side, one of the main problems drawn out by the film was the injustice toward the locals surrounding the mines. In some ways, they do injustice to themselves by holding such pride in their jobs. They are proud miners who make a good salary doing what they do. However, their employers make themselves out to be saints holding the keys to keeping the lights on in American homes, while in reality they are doing nothing to make sure that we have a renewable method of keeping those very lights on. These companies tend to play the “jobs card” whenever confronted about labor injustice, however the average worker fails to recognize that there are few jobs per operation and mountaintop mining tends to be more of a capital intensive business, rather than a labor intensive one. The jobs card becomes even more ludicrous when unions are accounted for. Massey Coal dominates the region the film takes place in and in the 1970’s and 80’s rendered the unions powerless by hiring non union workers who lived out of town. This pitched miner against miner and drew the focus away from Massey. In effect, this impoverishes the locals by taking local salaries and exporting them to other communities. Locals see only two employment opportunities. They are coal and fast food because those are the two types of businesses which are located near them. Coal is the favorable option in this case for the worker. The government officials pose another sustainability factor. Representatives Byrd and Rockefeller of West Virginia both endorse the coal industry and in the case of Rockefeller, only as a means into office. Rockefeller first ran for office in the 1970’s on a platform condemning strip mining and lost. He came back the next year with the opposite platform and won. This clearly shows both how skewed the public view of the coal industry is, and how shady the politics are around the energy industry.
4. I found the imagery most compelling in the film. The image the McDonalds golden arches and a coal processing plant present as the only two options for employment strike me as a designed effort by the wealthy to keep the poor coming to work. The most compelling images came from the sheer dirtiness of the towns. When one woman cleaned her water filter there was a thick sludge in the filter. Such contamination and build up proves the abnormal amount of solids in the water in those regions and the ineffectiveness of the coal industry to control itself. Another compelling image was the dome protruding over the ridge where an impoundment had been covered. The community had rallied to get this backyard menace cleaned up to find the coal companies only willing enough to cover their mess, rather than actually fix it. The dome was the lowest cost option for controlling the negative impact of that impoundment. Additionally, the effort by the coal companies and legislators to undermine non-compliance suits was incredible.
5. I was not convinced by the happy ending. The sentiment at the end of the film is one of hope supplied by wind power. However, this movement was just starting. If a plan was presented in the film discussing how the group would approach the government, the community and the coal giants themselves. The learning of the law by the communities inspires hope, especially as these movements take off, however implementing wind power is a huge challenge right now as it is not constant and certainly not cost competitive at this time.
6. This film best addresses an audience with an activist spirit and little knowledge of what the coal industry is like. I personally was educated very well during this film as to the intricacies and impacts of the coal industry on local communities and on legislation. Corruption, bias and misinformation are shown to be momentously detrimental to the Appalachian people and stand in the way of any effort to fix the broken system. The largest factor in overcoming such challenges may be the loyal work force itself. These people have the coal business ingrained in their bones and family traditions. That kind of loyalty will prove to be the toughest to overcome.
7. This film would have been enhanced by more outside perspective on the coal industry and the effects on the people in Appalachia. Most of the interviewed were citizens directly affected by mountaintop removal. Some of these people had education and were very well informed, but some more points of view which are not affected by the coal industry would have given some insight and balance to the film’s analysis.
8. Engaging in wind power movements was suggested by the film as an action item. This solution is valid, but must become cost competitive to be adopted by energy companies. Also, training programs would need to be established in order to maintain the wind turbines locally, rather than hiring out of town technicians to maintain the systems.
9. In addition to the film, I sought out information on Massey Energy’s commitment to the environment, specifically, water quality. (http://www.masseyenergyco.com/environment/water_quality.shtml) The page describes Massey’s pledge to exceed the provisions of the Clean Water Act. The most striking point provided by the sight is the description of the slurry monitoring systems. These systems pump 5 billion gallons of slurry annually and monitor the pipes for leaks, pressure and any damage which trigger an automatic shut down of the pump if set off. The question I come away with is, where are they putting the slurry? The description says the pipes can exceed one half mile in length. A spry college student can run that in less than five minutes. Massey apparently sees fit to develop technology that works, but cannot be used effectively.
This press release (http://www.nrdc.org/media/2010/100517.asp) from May 2010 states that a survey of reclaimed land shows poor utilization of reclaimed land. Through surveying 410 reclaimed sites, the study produced the data that 89.3 percent of the reclaimed land had no economic activity taking place on it. If the purpose of reclamation is to render the land usable, the coal industry is failing.